Frustration and Displeasure: Watching "Urgent Solutions" with my Father and Mother - by Kira McClure

As an environmentalist and a humanities student, I am no stranger to the UN’s endeavors in promoting sustainability. In fact, I would go so far as to say that my understanding of the subject matter extends beyond the scope presented within the “Nations United: Urgent Solutions for Urgent Times” short film. Because the short film is structured more like an introductory piece to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, I decided to screen the film for my parents and have them fill out a questionnaire to gather their feedback.

I introduced the film to my parents in minimalist terms, as I wanted to minimize my influence on them before the screening. I stated that it was produced by the United Nations to describe the desire to fulfill the sustainable development goals in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The questionnaire form that I gave them was comprised of four questions: “How did this short film impact you on an emotional level?”, “Celebrity Ambassadors were heavily utilized during this film. Did their inclusion have a positive or negative impact on the presentation of the film’s message?”, “After viewing, how well do you understand the UN Sustainable Development Goals?”, “This film was released in September of 2020; Do you think the meaning of the film has changed two years down the line?”

My father summarized his feelings after watching the film in one word: frustration. He said that he expected more from the United Nations than platitudes, and yearned for them to present solutions to the issues mentioned. He viewed the use of celebrity ambassadors to be highly hypocritical, and detrimental to the film's overall message. Furthermore, he believed that the film could have done a much better job representing what the sustainable development goals were in the first place. Except for the carbon reduction goal, he felt that the rest of the issues were presented in terms that were too generic. Finally, he found it interesting how the film’s message of pursuing change has been sidelined by the societal rush to return to normalcy.

My mother's response to the short film was both similar and different from my father’s. While my father was left feeling frustrated after watching the film, my mother was angered and displeased. She felt that the lack of sources/citations was, in her own words, “insulting and irresponsible”; Going so far as to say that “any teacher would give (the film) an F for weakly supported arguments”. In regards to the celebrity ambassadors, my mother felt like they would have been much more credible if their credentials as activists were listed. Furthermore, she felt like it would have been much better if scientists and dedicated activists were utilized instead. After watching the film, she felt like the film did a mediocre job presenting the sustainability goals; Going so far as to say that they were presented in too vague of a manner to be considered credible. Finally, she felt that the passage of time is “just as meaningless now as it was then” to the message.

While I certainly don’t entirely agree with their sentiments surrounding the film, I feel like it's fascinating to see how individuals react to this type of messaging outside of the vacuum of academia. While I believe that acquiring knowledge breeds broader awareness, I think it can cause one to lose sight of the outsider’s perspective; Especially when it comes to analyzing the quality of how something is explained. When watching the film, I rationalized the representation of the sustainable development goals as being simplified for a general audience, because I understand them at a higher level. However, the general audience that screened the film felt that it was too vague. I think one of the many lessons to be taken away from this experiment is that the best way to truly gauge how an audience will react to a piece of media, is to show it to them.